Jennifer Nash’s introduction to Black Feminism Reimagined, “Feeling Black Feminism”, gives a detailed analysis and overview of the history and function of the term “intersectionality” in academic institutions.

When detailing the intellectual history of intersectionality, Nash posits that what has made the term “intersectionality” so important is its “…capacity to allow its reader to imagine its analytic import, to neatly and coherently represent a term that aspires to describe complexity…” (11). This, according to Nash, has given the term the ability to move across divisions within women’s studies and other disciplines– making it significant in terms of how widespread in use it has become. One point that Nash makes that caught my attention is when she mentions how “black feminist defensiveness” is rooted in how, institutionally, black women are perceived and treated as “saviors and world-ending figures” (13). In connection to this, Nash’s conversation of the ways in which academic institutions perceive the presence of black women as being essential to a narrative of progress, while simultaneously interpreting black feminism as unnecessary once the institution has successfully  extracted/incorporated what is needed into its overall objectives is of interest.

This leads into the positioning of  intersectionality as only being relevant when it is seen as an opposing force, or as a remedy to exclusive elements of white feminism. In other words, “intersectionality” as a term meant to describe the different levels of oppression faced by black women becomes stripped of this original meaning and dissociated from the black women academics who contributed to an understanding of it.

In “For and About Women: The Theory and Practice of Women’s Studies in the United States,” Marilyn Boxer outlines the history, political issues and structures of women’s studies disciplines and programs in United States universities. My initial reaction from reading this piece is that I’m struck by the history of the women’s studies department. Even though I am involved in women’s studies at the university I’m attending, and therefore have taken many classes and had an extensive exposure to the department, I was still unaware of the history behind it, and the implications around it’s structure. Even though I was unaware of the history of the women’s studies inception, this piece did not necessarily invoke the same kind of emotional reaction that I’ve gotten from many of the other articles that have been read this semester. Even so, Boxer’s piece was still interesting and informative about feminism in the academy.

First, Boxer outlines some historical aspects of women’s studies. In 1970, San Diego State introduced the first fully established women’s studies program in the nation. Not so different from the feminist movement as a whole, the goal of women’s studies was to be apart of the revolution; changing how we study women will change how women can live. Boxer also states that the onset of the women’s studies movement was a “centerless, leaderless movement” (p. 667). As we’ve discussed in class, in relation to an essay written by Jo Freeman, a formally structureless movement will still have an informal structure. In the case of academia, structurelessness could serve to benefit the already privileged. Adrienne Rich says the fear is that women’s studies in male-dominated spaces would “nourish a false sense of power” for the women in those spaces (p. 670). Later in the piece, Boxer states that to tackle this fear, women’s studies “must not separate theory from practice” (p. 676). I think the fear that women in male-dominated spaces having a “false sense of power,” by believing they are making change in the system even though they are not, is an interesting and important topic to address. For class I hope we can discuss how feminist activism works in academic institutions, and if it’s true that women’s spaces in them gain a sense of a power that they don’t really have.

During class, we discussed readings by Jo Freeman, Bernice Johnson Reagon, Deborah Gould, and Grace Kyungwon Hong. Initially, we discussed how we felt about the readings and how they resonated with us. It was noted from Freeman’s writing that the informal structure of movements can lead to abuse of power and how some of the content from “Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood” is still very much relevant today. The Reagon pieces, in contrast to Freeman, discussed how people were not pushed out of movements, but never included to begin with. We discussed the principles of fighting existence but also for future generations to have access to things such as safety. The conflicts in these movements tend to arise from a lack up representation and the feeling of being “left out” which seemed especially true in ACT UP. The term “coalition” was discussed due to some confusion about the definition and meaning of the word. It was important to acknowledge that in a coalition there are people from many backgrounds who can come together for a common cause. There was a conversation about the realization/understanding that there are different people in the world that are not what you perceive them to be, and how easy it is to generalize but how damaging it can be. We discussed the third world by looking at the Triple Jeopardy Women’s Alliance, discussing imperialism/colonialism and who is represented in the term of “third world.” We related the “Trashing” article to today and our own personal feelings and experiences with trashing and feminism. Overall, our class was a well-rounded discussion and opportunity to think more about the readings and understand how fracturing in movements occurs.

A quote from this reading that stuck out to me was, “Conflicts do not destroy movements (330).” Gould follows this by explaining that it’s the dimensions of the conflict that determines whether or not a movement survives through the conflict, not necessarily the conflict itself.

I thought that this was an important thing to note, as we are in a class called Feminist Conflict. It felt like an important reminder that there is nothing wrong with conflict within a movement as long as solidarity remains in tact, and if that is recognized, then it’s more likely to survive.

In regards to ACT UP’s fate, it seems that the activist’s feelings of ineffectiveness, nonrecognition, exclusivity, and betrayal resulted in hostility between identities. As time passed, there was little progress in addressing or curing the epidemic and this caused members to point fingers. The differences that were felt to be irrelevant before were now being blamed for the lack of success. Gay white men were upset and leaving the organization because they were upset that AIDS was not the number one item on the agenda (“after racism, sexism, and gay and lesbian visibility” (346)). Women felt unacknowledged for their efforts and offended because their motives were called into question.

Regardless of the status of the organization, the government notoriously failed to prioritize a response to the AIDS epidemic and I think that played a big role in the fracturing of ACT UP. As stated above, said lack of response resulted in an undeniably slow enactment of improved conditions for people with AIDS and peace of mind for those at risk. This surely caused a great deal of unease, especially for the activists that had been causing scenes in public to raise awareness and devoting years of their lives to bring about change. This stagnation inevitably would have resulted in frustration and a call to look inward to see what is not being done correctly. As there was already a split in the movement, it is easy to see how each side looked at the other and deemed the other side as the root of the problem. My point is, I’m curious how the situation would have proved to be different had the government prioritized it as “public enemy number one” sooner. If it hadn’t been neglected as it was, it would be interesting to see if the movement could have progressed differently and if their solidarity would have remained in tact.

The purpose of this piece is to address the idea of “structurelessness” as the only form of organization within the women’s liberation movement. While it started out as a healthy counter to the rigid structure of mainstream society, the ideology has become just as inflexible and limiting. Freeman is trying to examine why structurelessness doesn’t work. There will still be informal structure in a structureless group, and without formal structures there is more room for “strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others.” It’s just a way of masking power, not stopping it from forming. This is when groups of elites spring up, and they can take advantage of the informal nature of structurelessness and gain power without healthy competition. Also, without formal structure, there are no official spokespeople or ambassadors to the public for the movement. This means that people outside the movement will select women within it to hold up as spokeswomen, and the movement has lost control of its public image. There are no shortages of problems with this “structureless” movement and how it functions. Freeman ends the piece with seven principles of democratic structure. She is saying we must keep these principles in mind moving forward and start putting them in place if the movement is to succeed. The “structurelessness” cannot continue because it is ineffective at best and doing damage the movement at worst.

I really liked the seven principles of democratic structuring Freeman added at the end of the piece because I really like having a plan and an outline for how to proceed. I feel like a lot of feminist writing I have encountered has been purely theoretical and doesn’t have much of a plan for real-world application, so seeing actual suggestions for how to proceed was exciting. I thought the piece was eye opening to the ways power can be taken and taken advantage of even in groups that claim to not have positions of power within them. It’s really interesting to keep an eye on.

I think the class discussion could focus on how we feel about structure within the movement or “structurelessness.” What good could structure do? Could it also do harm? What are the consequences of each? Are we sacrificing something important by adding structure? We could also ask how would we implement structure in a structureless group? What are the logistics of that?

Hong’s article takes a look at the ways in which conflict can be interpreted as something which can be utilized so as to centralize the different analytics and tactics of women of color feminists. Conflict, according to Hong, is not something which should be avoided but rather as something which is necessary for progression and change. In her discussion of intersectional feminism, Hong notes how intersectional feminism takes into account and engages with difference within various groups — connecting this then to how women of color activists have recognized that narratives of struggle do not always translate across geographical and historical contexts (3).

When speaking of Triple Jeopardy, a publication by the TWWA, Hong mentions aspects of the text that convey the authors’ wanting to avoid jeopardizing the stability of the movement. For example – after mentioning the actions of Mohammad Hunt – the “three types of actors who jeopardize movement politics” are listed as “Agents, Opportunists, and Fools.” (6). Connecting this back to Hong’s original point of conflict as a necessity in organizing and building community, she draws attention to the emotions and change in dynamic in the TWWA following the actions of Hunt. More specifically, one point of interest to me is when she notes that feelings of anger and hurt can be as influential as those of love and solidarity — as this is something which I feel is generally ignored when speaking of organizing and community building in which there tends to be a focus on “positive” feelings and lack of tension as a way to ensure progression and stability.

The purpose of this speech seems to be about activists encompassing their whole identities, like women of color, while working with others, like white women, within coalition work. Reagon points out that there is no such thing as just a woman. There are other defining parts of each person, whether it is their sexuality, race, economic status, etc., that they are also each fighting for along with being women. Another main purpose of the piece is to try and get people to realize they won’t necessarily see the outcome of all their work, but that what they are doing is necessary because humans today should care about making lives better for the humans in a hundred years. A good quote from the piece with this message is when Reagon says, “the thing that must survive you is not just the record of your practice, but the principles that are the basis of your practice” (pg.366). The principle of fighting for not just existence, but also ability to work, have housing, safety are all the principles that will continue the work being done and people will have succeeded if they cannot only acknowledge the history of the coalition activists, but also have what they believed in either come to fruition or still be a principle kicking out in the world for it’s permanent place.

This all being said I actually had a fair amount of trouble understanding this piece. I believe Reagon used a lot of these images and examples to get across her point, but I am still confused exactly what the point of the beginning half was. I think it was around the intersectionality of people and how that has been pushed out of activist movements in the past to focus on only one identity or issue. I also think it was referencing a lot about how white women were the main voices in the women’s movement/feminism. Many main women’s rights activist said there was no room for Black or lesbian women’s voices that weren’t only backing “women’s issues”, which in reality were just about white women’s issues. I am still unsure if what I said in this paragraph or the one above are even correct, but these are what I believe to be the purposes of Reagon’s words. 

“In the back of my head there is a pervasive, irrational certainty that says if I stick my neck out, it will once again be a lightning rod for hostility,” writes Joreen Freeman in her opening passage of TRASHING. This is an occurring issue for feminist everywhere—the conflict that arises when telling your truth risks the consequence of other opinions. Joreen Freeman writes an excellent essay in which she describes the ways in which women, who are supposed to be advocates for each other, use their power to tear other women down. Freeman describes this notion as “trashing,” which she defines as “a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive.
It is not done to expose disagreements or resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy.”

Freeman explains how her own character was torn apart by Movement women and how she unknowingly becomes a leper within the feminist realm that she so very much believed in. She writes, “I gave the movement the right to judge me because I trusted it. And when it judged me worthless, I accepted that judgment.” For months she stood by the Movement, which she believed was doing good for and by women, and dealt with the backlash of being trashed. She soon began to realize that she was being ostracized by every member within the Movement and that her opinions meant little to nothing to anyone. She withdrew herself for the sake of her own mental health and well-being and quickly discovered how little her absence meant when no one reached out to ask why she had left. Her experience was not so different than many other feminists of her time, yet the fear of being trashed was too high for any to confront. Her essay explains her troubles years after they occurred—a trashing within itself if you will, due to the continued fear of being ostracized again.

This essay was published in 1976, and yet the information disclosed still rings true today. “Trashing” is a problem for all women, severity varying. As feminists, it is our moral duty to do good by all beings, but we continue to find ourselves at conflict with one another. This essay perfectly puts into words the theme that we are covering within this course. It puts feminist conflict on blast and shows us just how bad things can get. As I reflect on this essay I come to the confrontation that I too have been a victim of “trashing,” but I have also been the “trasher.” It is hard as a woman to remember to be understanding of others opinions, and it’s even harder when those opinions are completely opposite of your own. It is quite easy to trash other opinions, however, and that is where we see the problem arise. As feminist, we must remember what we stand for and who we stand with. It is important to speak your truth, but it is just as important to let others speak theirs—that is if it is doing no harm. As Freeman writes in her last line, “Isn’t it time we stopped looking for enemies within and began to attack the real enemy without?”

The generalized premise of the articles we read this week is that emotionality is fundamental to feminism, as well as other activist movements. In particular, there was consistent approval of feeling angry, and using that anger to fuel an activist life. The first thing that I noted from class is how everyone seemed to deeply resonate with these messages, and how clear it was that everyone had a visceral reaction to reading the assigned pieces. We discussed in class some differences between how feminism is viewed; in Ahmed’s writing we see the pain that comes along with being feminist, portraying how conflict is ingrained in what it means to be feminist; on the other hand, it was brought up that feminism can be viewed as always feeling good, as feeling empowered, as using “girl power.” Through discussion it seemed that the latter does not encompass a great deal of what it means to be a feminist. In Ahmed’s “Feminism is Sensational,” it was clear how noticing injustice and anger go hand in hand in mobilizing activism. As outlined by Gould, there is an emotional habitus of political movements; the emotional habitus of the Act Up movement was turning grief into anger, as was discussed in class. After discussing the emotions that are inherently involved in feminism and how we all felt the strong emotions through the readings, it felt like a emotional habitus was created in the classroom. The environment was emotional and supportive. Although, I also think that the environment could be improved upon. As a fellow classmate posed in a reading response post, maybe we could discuss how to be better listeners to each other and to deal with our own feelings in a productive way. This mentality is what I think the emotional habitus of the classroom should be, and the start of what we had in this past class period.

FIn Sara Ahmed’s reading, Feminism is Sensational, she conveys the importance of wanting to address the individual process of coming to feminism. She revealed her personal experiences of feminism and what it means to her not only as a theoretical framework; however, as a way that feminism is acted upon an embodied “sensational” occurrence. For example, her experiences growing up of any unwanted attention from a man and exploring these individual moments to become a collective feminist history. This is something that can be identified as patterns or regularities whether it is a first-hand experience or something we see in the media. Ahmed explores the histories leading up to how feminism can or may leave people fragile. She accounts how feminism begins with a sense of things, as being wrong, and how we must acquire knowledge and understanding by comprehending that what does not at first make sense will make sense. Ahmed also discusses how in giving problems their names, we also make wrongs appear even more real. “Feminism is sensational.” It is an act of becoming alive to the world with our reactions to the world.

The moment/passage that I felt most familiar with is the unwanted male attention and how much I should expect it growing up especially with film/television shows that centers around male gaze. It made me become smaller.